Deadlake

If your scopes are tail heavy then yes, the Y axis adapter makes a large difference....

For you use case of an NVD and I presume you are using a reducer for the C8 to get a little more speed (F7?) then the Y axis adapter is a must have to balance the scope. If you get this then the altitude adjustor (to make a pair of scopes point to the same position) is not of any use. The YAB is so good I have it on an AZ75 and AZ100. See it in action here, the scope with a NVD attached also has a reducer mounted internally to the FT3545 and is tail heavy.

This SQM meter turned up earlier this week, however as usual no clear skies to make a reading…

Thats fine, however I think over companies offer a minimum value (tolerance), instead of offering an actual value.

Short answer yes. I can tell the difference between 4” scopes with a Vixen with a Strehl of 0.96 and an LZOS of 0.98. With stars more focused (tighter) brighter stars. With the moon more contrast on shadow details. With Jupiter, more detail of festoons and belts within the planet. But generally the presentation of the image is sharper. Also the LZOS Is a faster scope, not exactly sure of this myth of slower scope higher contrast comes from, I suspect all down to the MTF of the scope. It’s really that obvious you do not need to be an experienced observer to see the difference, however making use of it is another question.

I did think that, however one scope has a carbon tube but no quoted Strehl tests and the other has an Aluminium tube but a quoted Strehl. I suspect both scopes are made in the same factory however to slightly different specifications which I understand is quite common to confuse the buyers even more. Quite common with APM EP's (different coatings on lens to meet different price points for different vendors all made in the same factory), or so Marcus L and Rupert S tell me...

There is one other option, again a 125 mm double however this has a minimum Strehl or 0.95 in the green. https://astrograph.net/epages/www_astrograph_net.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/www_astrograph_net/Products/AGTEC125F78 I have no ideal of the Stellamira performance measured empirical in any thread.

I think there is a wish that everything is simple however we know that many things are not. In this case the MTF of the scope and not just the aperture needs to be taken into account. The C11 although good, its mirror cannot really compare with the optics of a top tier APO and if the C11's mirror was manufactured to the same tolerance I'm sure it would be a 12K scope. Having said all of that the C11 is a great light bucket, but to get contrast and detail on objects needs a better mirror....

Ok here is one I cannot explain, and maybe a little of topics. I had a 105 mm and C11 mounted side by side. Observing Orion's Nebulae I can make out more nebulosity using the 105 mm then the C11. A 20 mm XWA in the 105 mm and a 30 mm UFF in the C11. The C11 is wrapped. I was surprised....

Shouldn't this post be moved into EAA section?

@josefk I did discuss having a top mount saddle with Derek however impractical as it would collide with the motors on the top of the AZ100. Either an AZ150 is needed, APM AtlZ heavy mount or you could look at a HAZ71 that will easily take the load.

Interested to hear out you get on with e ink tablet. I was hoping maybe an OLED based tablet would be close to simulating the red led screen of the Nexus….

The joystick removes the need to keep the web front end running to control the AZ100 via a wireless gamepad. The remote however does not have a screen. I would of liked the option to select a target and perform two star alignment via the controller. A bit like the Pegasus controller: At the moment the other option is a Nexus, that has the advantage of less screen light as the red led can be made very faint.

If anyone with an interest in the AZ100 has gone to the Practical Astro Show maybe they could tell us about this upcoming AZ100 remote control. Thanks

Is is still one more thing to do. it's a trade off between compactness for the aperture compared with a Newtonian and adding shield to handle the dew build up.....

Since this thread is so old I would how many who posted have still got there SCT’s?

I sold a Vixem SD103S to fund a C11. Should I have kept the SD103S, probably, however I sold it because I thought it would keep my wife happy and the C11 was actual sold to keep the owners wife happy. Maybe we need a thread title how many scope have you sold or relocated to keep you partner happy?

Quite a good price, that’s cheaper then what is being asked for a Stowaway new at Skypoint.

Plenty of space in the garage…. As far as hiding scopes is this why EP’s are bought so much as so easy to hid? 😃

I would select an AP Riccardi-Honders, https://www.astro-physics.info/index.htm?products/telescopes/305honders/305honders I could then use an NVD @ F3.8 in prime mode which gives a sharper image. Since the above scope is no longer made I'l have to wait for Lockwood's F2 Newt-Cassegrain (best words to describe it) you can read more about it here... http://www.loptics.com/articles/WSP2024/WSP2024.html It looks like a Newt, however has a custom multiple optic corrector as a Paracorr cannot deal with the speed of the scope. I'm sure not really a new design as the military have had scopes like this for some time.

I would go with a LZOS 105 mm, even if it weighs twice as much as a Takahashi and much more than TV85 mm. The unique selling point is the speed for use with an NVD, at F5 using a compressor it makes for a bright image and without the NVD the large exit pupil helps with using a filter with a glass EP. Under a dark sky the boast in contrast is amazing. AP compressor below, fits inside the FT3545. The scope compressors to no more in length then the TV 85 mm and I can use on a AZ75, thats the only part that makes the scope not flyable with. @DirkSteele surely if you need weight reduction a Stowaway 92 mm would fit the bill 😀 in stock here however it’s nearly the same price as a 130 mm LZOS. If I was not needing portable the 130 mm version would be my first choice, but there is something just right in size etc with a 105 mm scope.

Nah looks just about the correct size...

I was wondering if the Rowan control box could be extended to host FinderPi plate solving. Seeing as the control box looks like a Raspberry Pi and things has moved on, this open source project allows for plate solving on a RaspPi https://github.com/brickbots/PiFinder I was thinking if the software runs on a Pi and could be hosted in the AZ control box all that is needed is either a hand controller with a screen or maybe the Rowan planetarium software is extended to support plate solving feature. The main trick is a camera and gyroscope needs to be added and connected to the controller box via a cable. The up shot is push to with plate solving and hopefully no need for encoders. On the AZ1100 it could hopefully drive the motors. No need to level the mount precisely or realign at all if the scope/mount is moved around the garden.... Could we have plate solving running on the control box is the question?

Three scopes in total: LZOS 105 mm/ @ 6.25 (Very sharp, folds up very small) A larger LZOS 130 mm @ f6 And a C11 before it was wrapped with insulation. I seem to have a lot less scopes than other people posting in this forum., what scope next? I have a suspicion that any larger than 130 mm APO's cannot really be pushed to their limits due to the seeing that the UK skies support, maybe a slower 130 mm? A 16" DOB, well I could wheel it out the front, however not out the back as no access.

I'd agree 😀 Also older threads on this subject do not take into account advances made. A takahashi DZ or Agema Optics are for effective purposes are giving the performance of a triplet with the cool down properties of a doublet. 125 mm seems to be where most of the action is, also consider this scope which has a Strehl measured in the green of at least 0.95 https://astrograph.net/epages/www_astrograph_net.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/www_astrograph_net/Products/AGTEC125F78